Talk:Dansk Datamatik Center

Dansk Datamatik Center has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 22, 2021. (Reviewed version).

Denmark Mid‑importance

	Denmark portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Denmark, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Denmark on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DenmarkWikipedia:WikiProject DenmarkTemplate:WikiProject DenmarkDenmark articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computer science Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computer science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Computer science related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Computer scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Computer scienceTemplate:WikiProject Computer scienceComputer science articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Things you can help WikiProject Computer science with:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests :
- Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Computer science, computing, and Internet
Cleanup :
- Computer science articles needing attention
- Computer science articles needing expert attention
Copyedit :
- Computing
Expand :
- Computer science
Infobox :
- Computer science articles without infoboxes
Maintain :
- Timeline of computing 2020–present
Photo :
- Find pictures for the biographies of computer scientists (see List of computer scientists)
- Computing articles needing images
Stubs :
- Computer science stubs
Unreferenced :
- WikiProject Computer science/Unreferenced BLPs
Project-related :
- Tag all relevant articles in Category:Computer science and sub-categories with {{WikiProject Computer science}}

A fact from Dansk Datamatik Center appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2016 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the Ada language compiler that Dansk Datamatik Center developed in the early 1980s has been termed an underappreciated success story in the use of formal methods?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2016/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dansk Datamatik Center.

Wikipedia

GA Review edit

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dansk Datamatik Center/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Some c/e done, also see comments below
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Ideally there would be identifiers such as isbn for all print sources, but I don't see that as necessary for GA level.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

"80 Kb code and 110 Kb data" I assume this is Kilobit but I'm not sure. It should be specified in the article.
"Well-formedness criteria were used to supply additional constraints on operations beyond what was defined by the abstract syntax." I am not quite sure what this means, possibly it should be rewritten to be more clear or include relevant wikilinks.
the Vienna Development Method — I think it would benefit from a bit more explanation what this is
What is OEM?
"A year later DDC-I, Inc. followed in the United States" doesn't explain the connection
"seeding them with as many as a hundred software designers and developers who had worked at DDC" -> the verb "seeding" is unnecessary jargon

(t · c) buidhe 00:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Buidhe: Thanks very much for taking on this review. I believe I have now made changes to address all of your listed comments. I also looked at your direct copyedits and I am fine with them, although in one case I further elaborated on the point being made. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Add topic